How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Perm]

Not sure about Wisden tbh, I could check it up, but that is a lot of reading

Well who rated him as the best fast bowler while he was playing? I am sure that plenty of people rated Marshall and Hadlee as superior, and there would have been quite a few peope who rated Lillee as the #1.

 

[Matt79]

I have Marshall ahead of him in my own pecking order.

But only Marshall.

 

[Perm]

I have Marshall ahead of him in my own pecking order.

But only Marshall.

Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath for me. That's just from the modern era, not taking into consideration the likes of Lohmann and Barnes whom I know very little about.

 

[Matt79]

Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose, Wasim, McGrath for me. Lindwall and Hadlee probably fighting for 6.

 

[SJS]

What I want to know is why he doesn't. Has he ever even mentioned the fact? (No, I'm not suggesting he's unaware of it, just that it surprises me that someone like Imran would not mention it and think something of it)

Imran mentions in his autobiography what dead wickets they had in Pakistan for that series and also talks very highly of Lillee.

He also mentions that he tried his best to pursuade everyone not to make such lifeless wickets butthey were in such a defensive frame of mind that they wouldnt listen.

 

[archie mac]

Well who rated him as the best fast bowler while he was playing? I am sure that plenty of people rated Marshall and Hadlee as superior, and there would have been quite a few peope who rated Lillee as the #1.

You would think so, but almost every bio I have read (a lot) of the players from that era all rate Lillee the best including Marshall and Hadlee, in fact I am struggling to think of anyone from that period who did not rate him the best.

Gooch did not, but he said only because he faced him right at the of his career, so he did not consider him, when choosing

 

[Richard]

a. Expressing indifference to touring a country is different to pulling out

Not as much as you might think - so long as the disenchantment is there, there's an element of resignation.

b. Averaged 21 in Oz in 78/79 against one of the weakest attacks in our history

Rodney Hogg's presence alone makes that false, never mind Jim Higgs.

c. Head in sand again

Worthless comment without an explanation.

 

[Richard]

You always trot this out, and you're still be pretty much entirely wrong. Virtually nobody agrees with you on this, and you've as much as admitted previously that your basis for saying this is your own personal romanticism regarding the sanctity of cricket between the established national boards, as opposed to any principles of merit.

Any cricket organised by some media moghul for no purpose other than to get some cricket for his station is automatically pretty much meaningless.

 

[Richard]

Imran mentions in his autobiography what dead wickets they had in Pakistan for that series and also talks very highly of Lillee.

He also mentions that he tried his best to pursuade everyone not to make such lifeless wickets butthey were in such a defensive frame of mind that they wouldnt listen.

Dead wickets aren't the sole reason the subcontinent (and Pakistan especially) is considered the ultimate challenge for a seam-bowler, though. Heat and humidity, not to mention other unique factors, also come into consideration.

 

[Richard]

You would think so, but almost every bio I have read (a lot) of the players from that era all rate Lillee the best including Marshall and Hadlee, in fact I am struggling to think of anyone from that period who did not rate him the best.

Gooch did not, but he said only because he faced him right at the of his career, so he did not consider him, when choosing

Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons for such is not merely that many people place aura and attitude above other more important things but that most of these players would have faced Lillee in Australia or England, given that these are the only places he played much. And the precise reason he can't IMO be considered quite up with one or two others is because for him there is unknown where for others there is known.

No-one really disputes that Lillee was one hell of a prospect in such countries.

 

[Richard]

Probably because cricketers don't bother scouring StatsGuru to work out who was the best they played against.

Indeed, and perhaps they should.

Impulse and face-value is not the best way to judge a cricketer, and those who faced someone are as vulnerable as anyone to such mistakes.

 

[archie mac]

Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons for such is not merely that many people place aura and attitude above other more important things but that most of these players would have faced Lillee in Australia or England, given that these are the only places he played much. And the precise reason he can't IMO be considered quite up with one or two others is because for him there is unknown where for others there is known.

No-one really disputes that Lillee was one hell of a prospect in such countries.

You have decided these things yourself, no one else has ever said this in any book I have ever read

Unknown does not =unable so is a silly argument as far as I am concerned and it would seem meaningless to all of those people who rate Lillee No.1

 

[Engle]

Any cricket organised by some media moghul for no purpose other than to get some cricket for his station is automatically pretty much meaningless.

Not so. It was some of the hardest fought cricket. There was no respite. Viv, Imran and Lillee attest to this amongst others. They had to play hard or face KP's wrath and the fact that there was no safety net to fall back into. Google and find out more about WSC.

 

[Engle]

Indeed, and perhaps they should.

Impulse and face-value is not the best way to judge a cricketer, and those who faced someone are as vulnerable as anyone to such mistakes.

Well, other quicks looked up to Lillee as mentor and master and they are in a better position to judge than you and I

 

[Ikki]

Indeed, and perhaps they should.

Impulse and face-value is not the best way to judge a cricketer, and those who faced someone are as vulnerable as anyone to such mistakes.

To disagree with these players is one thing. The way you are belittling their opinion and denigrating their intelligence is a whole other thing, and it's starting to sound like a bad joke mate.

 

[Ikki]

Double

 

[Slifer]

Why not?

Because as pure cricketing skills goes then for starters i wood certainly rank imran Khan and sir richard hadlee ahead of him

 

[Burgey]

Indeed, and perhaps they should.

Impulse and face-value is not the best way to judge a cricketer, and those who faced someone are as vulnerable as anyone to such mistakes.

I know a bloke who played against Nick Knight and said he was a really fine ODI player - better than Gilchrist.

I told him his opinion was no good because he was just hero worshipping, took Knight's abilities at face value and was being impulsive.

You can't on the one hand respect these past greats' knowledge of the game then, when they express an opinion which doesn't suit your argument decry them as falling foul of hero worship, etc. Were Geoff Lawson or someone else who Lillee mentored the only one making these comments, I would believe that argument, but the evidence is oretty overwhelming in terms of the opinions of his contemporaries.

I had a look at Mike Holding's autobio a few months back, and iirc, he rated Andy Roberts number 1, then Lillee I think behind Roberts. Certainly had him right up there. Of course, Holding was mentored by Roberts to an extent, and he's about the only bloke I know of who rates him that highly, so perhaps hero-worship is a factor there.

 

[archie mac]

Because as pure cricketing skills goes then for starters i wood certainly rank imran Khan and sir richard hadlee ahead of him

Better batsman I suppose you are suggesting (which is correct)

 

[Chubby Rain]

How old are you, archie_mac?